LD, first round is AC and NC 2nd round is AR 3rd round is NR 4 round is AR 2

Im affirnative

"The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against a few members will, is to prevent harm to the majority of the community." This is one of John Mill's harm principles. Freedoms are limited, we must have our basic needs and a safe environment to live in, without these things freedom cannot be exercised freely. When society goes without immunization it is bad for society as a whole; however, with compulsory immunization we could eliminate diseases and wouldn't have to worry about them in the future. When more lives are saved there is more happiness in society, which minimizes suffering and in turn achieves utilitarianism and maximum public safety. Therefore I affirm today's resolution "Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization"

My value for this round is utilitarianism because most of my information falls under John Stuart Mill's harm principle, Mill was English philosopher who created the term utilitarianism. My criterion is public safety. Utilitarianism is defined as the greatest good for the greatest number of people and public safety is defined as the quality of averting or not causing danger, or loss to population as a whole, according to random house dictionary. So, If we have the greatest good, we achieve the maximum public safety.

I'd like to start off with a few definitions from Random House Dictionary:
Public health: health services to improve and protect community health, esp. sanitation, immunization, and preventive medicine.
Concerns: to trouble, worry, or disquiet
Justify: to defend or uphold as well-grounded
Compulsory immunization: required or mandatory vaccination that makes an individual immune, as against a disease, only exemptions by law.

Observation 1:
LD is a moral debate, and with this debate you must choose the side which upholds their value and criterion better than their opponent, through the side's arguments and how it relates to today's resolution. Throughout my case I will show examples of reports where immunizations have helped. Also, in my arguments you will see me uphold my value and criterion extremely well, numerous times. To win this debate I must show you why my values triumphs my opponents and why I should when today's debate.

Observation 2:
For my opponent to successfully when this debate they must uphold their value and criterion better than I do and show this through their arguments. They must show why there should be no possibility for compulsory immunization. Governments must have all options on the table, and to affirm my side is to keep this option on the table, to affirm their side is to completely eliminate any chance of compulsory immunization. This is like nuclear weapons we don't use them, but the option is there if it comes to that. Affirming the negative is to say eliminate any possibility of these nuclear weapons. Also, if they drop ANY of my arguments, observations, sub points, value or criterion my opponent should lose this debate. They should also concede if I have better arguments that tie to the resolution and contentions. Also, just as a reminder opponents my not bring up new arguments after attack

Contention One:
Compulsory immunization eliminates disease and prevents it from returning.
Sub point A: In countries where there is compulsory vaccination of children, the argument presented by governments is that the mass vaccination of children from birth will help to eradicate and prevent various diseases from existing in the country. Prior to a vaccine for polio, between 13,000 and 20,000 cases were reported just in the USA annually. In 1988, the World Health Organization decided to try and eradicate polio worldwide, and as of today the disease has been removed from the USA, Western Pacific and Europe. Only four countries are endemic, and there are just 2000 cases reported worldwide as of 2009.
Sub point B: By stopping vaccination before the disease is widely eradicated leaves countries susceptible to future unexpected outbreaks. Polio is just one example of how vaccines can prevent and eradicate diseases that have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths throughout the past century. Although some may argue that with diseases such as Polio wiped out in most of the world a vaccine is not necessary. However any reduction in the number of people vaccinated against the disease would leave a window of opportunity for the disease to rear up once again. People tend to under estimate the dangers of disease especially if they have not experienced the effects.

Contention Two:
Compulsory Immunizations are necessary to protect the rights' of others. The good thing about immunization is that if the majority of the people get the vaccination, the disease can almost completely be eliminated from society. If the population is immunized under that amount, it is still possible for diseases to have significant outbreaks. This concept is often referred to as herd immunization.
Sub point A: Herd immunization is important because it minimizes the chances of those not vaccinated or those not able to be vaccinated chances of getting serious diseases. If one person's choice is not to get immunized they are directly harming another's freedom from the disease. People in society ought to be required to get immunizations because it protects the rights of others.
Sub point B: I believe we are given freedom in our world, but freedom with consequence. We protest against ideas we believe are wrong, demonstrating our right of freedom of speech, and get arrested, we practice our right of freedom in not getting vaccinations, and we see the consequences by directly putting others in danger. So when we exercise our right of freedom in not being forced to get an immunization, we are really taking away someone else's freedom. Therefore you really can't argue that compulsory immunizations take away your freedom, if in not getting them you're taking away other's freedoms. It's just hypocritical.

Contention Three:
Immunizations are cost efficient.
Sub point A: The recent swine flu break out have cost different government around the world much more than it takes to produce and spread the vaccine. America has spent over $110,000 on swine flu, with most of the money going toward personnel costs, according to a report by the country's health official, this is just one example. It cost way less to just give and enforce a vaccine, because it is the most "cost-effective" way to save lives.
Sub point B: If people were not have immunization, it also puts a burden on the health care system to treat all of those infected which must in some way be paid, which turns on the public. With compulsory immunizations, all of this can be avoided thus minimizing suffering, because the public will not have to pay extra tax for the treatment from health care system, in turn achieves utilitarianism. If people will not choose to make the right, justifiable, and sensible choice to be vaccinated, then the choice will be made for them. Vaccinations have undoubtedly saved millions of lives since their inception, the risks are minimal; the benefits are massive. However, without compulsion, the utilitarianism of these benefits would not be seen. Without compulsion, utilitarianism cannot be seen; therefore public safety is not achieved. As a result, I urge you to affirm the resolution.

I agree to the value and criterion he sets. I'll prove to you why voluntary immunization is better for public safety.

O1: Not really sure what this is.

O2: Multiple fallacies here.

"to affirm my side is to keep this option on the table, to affirm their side is to completely eliminate any chance of compulsory immunization."

The other way around, sir. As instigator and PRO, you have the burden to prove the resolution true, not "that it is an option." For the sake of fairness, though, I'll agree to a reciprical burden to conclusively prove the resolution false.

"if they drop ANY of my arguments, observations, sub points, value or criterion my opponent should lose this debate."

Why? If I drop an argument, you can accept it as true. That doesn't mean you win. What if I drop the argument that "John Doe in Kansas would be happier if we have compulsory immunization?" That's not a good enough reason for you to win.

C1: His claims are true, but non-unique. A little further on I'll show that informed consent vaccination is more than sufficient to eliminate disease as well. This means his C1 isn't a benefit to affirming, as it will happen anyway.

C2: Same as above contention. Voluntary immunization can easily achieve well over herd immunity, also.

C3: Same. Voluntary immunization is just as cost effective.

=My Case=

I believe:
We should inform all people of all benefits and harms of immunization, provide them with incentives for accepting, and upon their informed consent administer the vaccine. This solves all of PRO's problems without the harms.

========
Observations
========

1: Herd Immunity

Herd immunity describes a type of immunity that occurs when the vaccination of a portion of the population (or herd) provides protection to unprotected individuals. For example, smallpox's herd immunity threshold is 83-85%. [2]

2: Voluntary immunizations routinely exceed herd immunity

a. In Colorado, immunization rates are as high as 98%. [1]

b. The Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden have reached 90% to 93% [measles immunization] voluntarily. Incentives could further increase that number.

c. In 1997, a federal initiative to increase immunization coverage in Australia included financial incentives for parents and family doctors...Coverage for vaccines due by 12 months of age was 94% in 2001, compared with 75% in 1997, showing that incentives for parents and providers contribute to high immunization rates, even in the jurisdictions that do not have legislation to link school entry with vaccination.

Look at the 3 sources in my observation that say we already prevent disease without compulsory immunization. This means his issue of disease is already solved with or without compulsion, so there is no 'greater good for the greater number' and he isn't achieving utilitarianism at all.

2. Compulsory immunization leads to lower quality vaccines.

What keeps pharmaceutical companies from making vaccines with sever adverse side effects? People refuse to vaccinated if they are afraid that they will be hurt by it. [3] The pharmaceutical companies can't "sell the product;" they have to iron out the kinks, so to speak. That changes with compulsory immunization. The companies make a vaccine, for example the "experimental swine flu vaccines" [3] that may have adverse side effects, and the government forcibly distributes it. You have to accept the vaccine regardless of possible side effects; you have to "buy the product." In this situation, the company's only objective is to make a vaccine that effectively stops the disease, not one that is safe to administer. There is no profit gained in improving the safety of vaccination with compulsory immunization.

3. Compulsory immunization leads to biopower.

It's not the small minority of 2-5% who are losing their rights here. It's not just those who have previously refused vaccination that have their rights violated. Everybody loses their rights. I might have gotten all vaccinations in the past. That doesn't mean that I'll do so in the future, or that I don't deserve the right to refuse immunization. Affirming means the government violates the rights of all of the population, not a select few.

This massive violation of human rights is what philosopher Michel Foucault says constitutes Biopower. Biopower is the government's control of human life. Foucault contends that government is established solely to protect the rights of citizens. It should not try to manage the lives of its citizens. Foucault claims that this management of life turns people into objects. The government counts people as units of bare life. Its goal becomes maximizing the quantity of bare life under its control or "protection." He argues that this mindset leads us to commit grave atrocities in the name of "the common good" as he writes,

"Wars are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign who must be defended; they are waged on the behalf of the ontological existence of everyone; entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of life necessity: massacres have become vital. It is as managers of life and survival, of bodies and the race, that so many regimes have been able to wage so many wars, causing so many men to be killed. And through a turn that closes the circle, As the technology of wars has caused them to tend increasingly toward all-out destruction, the decision that initiates them and the one that terminates them are in fact increasingly informed by the naked question of survival. The atomic situation is now at the end point of this process: the power to expose a whole population to death is the underside of the power to guarantee an individual's continued existence."

Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. New York: Vintage, 1990

======
Summary
======

My opponent and I agree on the standards for the round. The side you vote for is the side that best ensure public safety.

---

That being said, my opponent certainly hasn't proved that vaccinations are beneficial at all to society. He has listed 3 contentions.

He seems to forget for which side he is arguing in his contentions. He posts sources praising the effectiveness of immunization. This in no way supports the conclusions he makes that compulsory immunization is in any way necessary. All benefits he talks about are from compulsory immunization achieving a high level of immunization, called herd immunity. Voluntary immunization achieves well over compulsory immunization, as well, so where is the benefit of compulsion? His contentions don't list a single thing compulsory immunization does that informed consent doesn't.

---

Now you have the arguments against compulsory immunization.

1. Voluntary immunization works equally well. We provide incentives for vaccination as well as outlining the benefits and harms, then we administer the vaccination provided that the patient gives his or her informed consent. All studies that I've given prove that this is more than sufficient to reach the necessary threshold of herd immunity.

First of all I would like to thank my opponent I have to debate this case at tournaments and I enjoy his input on my flaws. Something is I have written because this is my tournament case so it may not apply to this debate.

Ok first I will attack his case then rebuild my own.

Ok since he has the same value and criterion it would be pointless to show how they aren't good. However I feel that my value of utilitarianism and criterion of public safety better uphold my case. Utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number of people and that is what compulsory vaccination gives, even though some people may face side effects I'm looking for the greatest good for MOST of society. His case doesn't hold up utilitarianism becuase non compulsory vaccination will put society at risk, which kills public saftey as well. Also to vote for the con is to eliminate any possiblity of ever having compusory immunization, even in an epidemic. The government must have all cards on table so to speak, and to take away this option is to take away alot of public safety.
His observation of herd immunity falls under my side, the people who slip through the compulsion system will still be safe under herd immunization.
Ok his contention 1 There is no practical benefit to compulsory immunization. Not true
Vaccinations have undoubtedly saved millions of lives since their inception, the risks are minimal; the benefits are massive. What if the people that didn't take these vaccines did? There would have been way more lives saved into the billions. The benefits are that diseases can be completely eliminated from earth. Also, affirming the resolution doesn't mean that this option will be used it just means that it is a possibility. Like I said before we must have all options available, to vote con is to eliminate any possibility of EVER having compulsion.
His contention 2 Compulsory immunization leads to lower quality vaccines.
This honestly makes no sense. The quality will be the same, they are mass produced by machine. It sounds like he is saying that a person will get tired of making so many. Also, they will still make these vaccines good, without hardly any side effects because if they are too bad the governments will stop them. The governments know that individuals make up thier country so they wont want to lose them. There will be more safety because more people will be saved from epidemics. Imagine if they had compulsory immunization during the boubonic plague this would have saved millions of lives.
Contention 3 of the con Compulsory immunization leads to biopower
He says the people who lose there rights are the people who don't want the vaccines, which is the minority. I stated "The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against a few members will, is to prevent harm to the majority of the community." John Stuart Mill who made the word utilitarianism, made this harm principle. If the minority doesn't get the vaccine because you vote con, then a epidemic breaks out, then the people who didn't get it will spread it to everyone, even with the vaccine. However if you vote pro then everyone is vaccinated and there is no chance of this epidemic to occur in the first place.
His sub point 2 is untrue. I believe we are given freedom in our world, but freedom with consequence. We protest against ideas we believe are wrong, demonstrating our right of freedom of speech, and get arrested, we practice our right of freedom in not getting vaccinations, and we see the consequences by directly putting others in danger. So when we exercise our right of freedom in not being forced to get an immunization, we are really taking away someone else's individual right's. Therefore you really can't argue that compulsory immunizations take away your individual right's, if in not getting them you're taking away other's individual right's. It's just hypocritical.
His sub point three well its just a qoute to help his case, but it can't because he does not write anything to help us understand how it relates to his case.

In conculsion of my attack:
His case does not stand becuase I have shown every flaw and way that my case is better. If people will not choose to make the right, justifiable, and sensible choice to be vaccinated, then the choice will be made for them. Vaccinations have undoubtedly saved millions of lives since their inception, the risks are minimal; the benefits are massive.

On to my case. My value and criterion are clearly linked. Again My value for this round is utilitarianism because most of my information falls under John Stuart Mill's harm principle, Mill was English philosopher who created the term utilitarianism. My criterion is public safety. Utilitarianism is defined as the greatest good for the greatest number of people and public safety is defined as the quality of averting or not causing danger, or loss to population as a whole, according to random house dictionary. So, If we have the greatest good, we achieve the maximum public safety.

My observations are to give you a better understanding, and show you reasons why I the pro obviously win.

My contentions all tie to the resolution showing why compulsory immunizations are justified by public health concerns. Finally all my sub points hold up my contentions and value and criterion.

With all that said I would like to thank my opponent again, but I clearly uphold my case better and you should see why I have won this debate. Thank you.

PRO spends about a paragraph explaining this. I already agreed to his V/C. This seems pointless.

---

"My observations are to give you a better understanding, and show you reasons why I the pro obviously win."

This isn't a rebuttal to my original point at all. This is just a blind assertion.

---

"My contentions all tie to the resolution showing why compulsory immunizations are justified by public health concerns."

Um, I'm pretty sure this doesn't suffice as a rebuttal. The argument was that voluntary immunization, just like compulsory immunization, garners well over the amount of vaccinations necessary for herd immunity. This means that all the good things about vaccination PRO is talking about are going to happen either way. Saying his contentions 'tie to the resolution' doesn't respond to this in the slightest.

======
My Case
======

========
Contention 1
========

Ok, so he agrees to both of the observations I gave, which were that
1. We only need to reach the Herd Immunity Threshold for a particular disease to stop it, not 100% immunization.
2. Voluntary immunization reaches well over herd immunity.

Yes it's true, vaccines save millions of lives, but we aren't debating "Resolved: Public health concerns justify immunization." Negating the resolution won't get rid of all vaccination, it will hardly get rid of any. Just reread both observations, which my opponent does not contest, that say that voluntary immunization is more than sufficient to solve all of the problems that the affirmative is complaining about.

=========
Contention 2
=========

"Imagine if they had compulsory immunization during the boubonic plague this would have saved millions of lives."

What does this have to do with my Contention 2? This is just an illogical appeal to emotion. Millions of lives would have been saved from the Black Death if they had immunization, compulsory or otherwise.

"The quality will be the same, they are mass produced by machine. It sounds like he is saying that a person will get tired of making so many."

That's not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that without the ability to reject the vaccination, there is no profit incentive for pharmaceutical companies to make vaccines better.

========
Contention 3
========

"He says the people who lose there rights are the people who don't want the vaccines, which is the minority."

This is the exact opposite of what I said. I said it's not just the minority that loses their rights. Everyone loses their right not to be vaccinated. My opponent has taken the exact opposite of what I've said and argued against it. He hasn't addressed the point that I actually made.

"His sub point three well its just a qoute to help his case, but it can't because he does not write anything to help us understand how it relates to his case."

1. I don't even have a 'sub point three,' I'm not exactly sure what my opponent is talking about here. I'll assume that he means the quote by Michel Foucault.

2. The argument is pretty clear that when the government starts to manage life, it causes atrocities like genocide and war. My opponent has simply ignored that.

======
Summary
======

For the 2nd time, my opponent has simply preached of the benefits of vaccines.

He hasn't denied that voluntary immunization solves all of the problems that he gripes about because it reaches near the same level of immunity. He hasn't given any benefit of compulsory immunization at all that we don't also achieve from voluntary immunization.

But what's worse: there are harms to compulsory immunization that we solve with voluntary immunization.

1. Effective Vaccines

Rather than arguing against my point that there is no profit for drug companies to make efficient drugs, my opponent somehow distorts my words into "he is saying that a person will get tired of making so many" and argues against that. My actual argument has gone uncontested.

2. Biopower

My opponent again argues against the opposite of what I'm saying:

I said: "Affirming means the government violates the rights of all of the population, not a select few."
He says: "He says the people who lose there rights are the people who don't want the vaccines, which is the minority."

I'm not sure how someone could possibly get my words more backwards than my opponent has. He has again argued against a point that I did not make and left my actual point unaddressed.

---

You have no benefits to compulsory immunization that aren't also solved through voluntary immunization, but there are 2 major harms. The only logical conclusion is to negate the resolution, make immunization voluntary, and vote CON.

As a brief road map I will first cover his attacks on me then give voters.

Ok to start with that round was just supposed to be just my rebuttal. Also, this is my style of debate, Texas debate, so to say I'm not debating right is wrong.
The reason I said that my value and criterion are linked was to show the voters how my value and criterion better link to my case.
Again with my observations, they were to give voters a clearer understanding of what is happening.
Everything I put in my rebuttal is a rebuttal, remember this is Texas debate so our styles my vary.
My arguement was not plagurized. A sentence was and that was a councidence.
Vaccines do save millions of lives and more could be saved if people were to take compulsory immunizations.
The black death thing had nothing to do with your contention two, but it did tie to your contention one, and made it fall.
The pharmacies will recieve pay still regardless, with the govenment forcing these immunizations, I'm sure they will pay for them. With the government paying them they would probably make better vaccines because they will be payed for sure, unlike if the unreliable citizen were to pay them.
He said this in contention three "It's not just those who have previously refused vaccination that have their rights violated. Everybody loses their rights. I might have gotten all vaccinations in the past. That doesn't mean that I'll do so in the future, or that I don't deserve the right to refuse immunization. Affirming means the government violates the rights of all of the population, not a select few." How so? It would be the people that don't get these vaccines that get thier right's violated, but like I said to exercise your rights, when it takes away some one elses is wrong.
I was refering to his quote and again this can't possibly help his case because he doesn't explain how it can. Also, the government won't be managing life, just one thing, something small at that, don't they control everything else anyways like laws, what you can do where and so on? Your arguement makes no since, so should be voided.
I didn't deny volentary vaccination because it should be alvailable, until compulsory vaccination is neccasary. To vote Con is to completely elminate any chance of my idea of compulsory vaccination. The benifit of compulsion that voluntary vaccination does not serve is that what ever epidemic is at bay, everyone will becime safe, but if they have the option and they dont get vaccinated then they are giving disease a window of oppurtunity to stay active.
He's arguements of less effective vaccines and biopower are obserd. We already have the government making all aspects of our lives under their control, so why not something important?

So, I have clearly shown how the v and c uphold my side better and how compulsory has more benifit than harm. It would be ridiculous for anyone to vote Con since his arguements are obsolete. I thank him for this debate, but you must vote Pro to save more lives and let the government have all options. Thank you for voting pro!

My opponent simply made a ton of 1-2 sentence arguments addressed at who knows what, so I'll address and rebut each one in the order that he gave them.

===

"The reason I said that my value and criterion are linked was to show the voters how my value and criterion better link to my case."
-
I don't care if you're from Texas or Pluto, that doesn't make sense.

Criterion --> Value

in no way means

Affirmative --> Criterion

===

"Again with my observations, they were to give voters a clearer understanding of what is happening."
-
I understand what PRO intended for them to do. The fact of the matter is, I rebutted them and this is the second time that he's ignored my rebuttal.

===

"Everything I put in my rebuttal is a rebuttal, remember this is Texas debate so our styles my vary."
-
Again, I'm pretty sure logic doesn't change from state to state. Texas or not, claims need to be backed up with warrants, or atleast reasoning. The ENTIRETY of his defense of your 3 contentions was:

"My contentions all tie to the resolution showing why compulsory immunizations are justified by public health concerns. Finally all my sub points hold up my contentions and value and criterion."

PRO hasn't 'proved' anything. He's 'claimed' that your contentions tie to the resolution, and even if that were true, he hasn't explained why that matters at all.

===

"My arguement was not plagurized. A sentence was and that was a councidence."
-
You're telling me that you happened to use this EXACT wording, copied word-for-word, entirely of your own accord:

"vaccinations have undoubtedly saved millions of lives since their inception. The risks are minimal; the benefits massive. Besides, without compulsion those benefits aren't seen."

It'll be up to the voters to decide, but I'd be hard pressed to believe someone could accidentally copy that word-for-word.

===

"Vaccines do save millions of lives and more could be saved if people were to take compulsory immunizations."
-
Wrong. PRO agreed to the observations I gave that:
1. We already eradicate diseases with voluntary immunization because we achieve well above herd immunity.
2. Compulsory immunization rates aren't much higher than rates of voluntary immunization to begin with.

===

"The black death thing had nothing to do with your contention two, but it did tie to your contention one, and made it fall."
-
PRO wrote that directly beneath 'Contention 2.' There is no way he could construe that to be addressing my C1.

It doesn't make anything 'fall' anyway. PRO didn't prove anything. He just said "Imagine what would happen if..."

===

"The pharmacies will recieve pay still regardless with the govenment forcing these immunizations"
-
Erm, this is exactly my point?

There is no profit motive because we have to 'buy' the vaccinations whether we want to or not. The pharmacies get paid regardless. I fail to see how this helps my opponent's case at all.

===

CON: I might have gotten all vaccinations in the past. That doesn't mean that I'll do so in the future, or that I don't deserve the right to refuse immunization.

PRO: How so?
-
I'd say this one's pretty cut-and-dry.

===

"to exercise your rights, when it takes away some one elses is wrong."
-
1. We aren't debating whether exercising your rights at another's expense is wrong. We're debating whether the government can violate your rights to stop that.
2. PRO doesn't say what 'rights' are being taken away.
3. No rights are being taken away, because as I've argued (and PRO has completely ignored) diseases are being stopped either way.

===

"I was refering to his quote and again this can't possibly help his case because he doesn't explain how it can."
-
Read the paragraph before the quote or simply the quote itself. It's pretty clear. PRO claiming that it doesn't make sense doesn't get him out of rebutting this.

===

"the government won't be managing life, just one thing, something small at that"
-
And that's how the whole issue of biopower started...and snow-balled...

===

"they control everything else anyways like laws, what you can do where and so on?"
-
Um, they don't? They still allow us to drink beer, sky-dive, smoke cigarettes, etc. All are hazardous to us.

All the government SHOULD do is lay down laws that protect our rights, e.g. "If you violate a person's right X you deserve punishment Y." The problem is when they start pushing their power beyond that.

===

"I didn't deny volentary vaccination because it should be alvailable, until compulsory vaccination is neccasary."
-
PRO has never given a reason why compulsory immunization would EVER be necessary.

===

"To vote Con is to completely elminate any chance of my idea of compulsory vaccination."
-
And to vote PRO is to completely eliminate any chance of my idea of solely voluntary immunization.

===

"benifit of compulsion that voluntary vaccination does not serve is that what ever epidemic is at bay, everyone will becime safe"
-
I've already addressed the issue that voluntary immunization stops such epidemics more than well enough.

===

"He's arguements of less effective vaccines and biopower are obserd."
-
If they're so 'obserd' it would make sense that PRO could easily rebut them. He certainly hasn't.

===

"We already have the government making all aspects of our lives under their control, so why not something important?"
-
1. The government doesn't currently control our entire lives.
2. That's not a good thing; PRO has never argued that it is. He's essentially saying "We're so sc*ewed up already, one more problem couldn't make it any worse."

===

"you must vote Pro to save more lives and let the government have all options"
-
Corrected:

"you must vote Pro to let the government have all options to control our lives."

======
Summary
======

My opponent has continuously hard on the benefits of compulsory immunization stopping disease, epidemics, etc. He has also continuously ignored every argument I've put forth saying voluntary immunization does this equally well.

He dismisses my 2 major arguments as 'obserd' without ever giving a rebuttal. He miscontrues them and totally twists them on multiple occasions.

We agree that you, the voter, should weigh decisions through a utilitarian standpoint (greatest good for the greatest number) so let's consider the 'good' each side has going for it.

PRO
All the benefits he claims are pretty much 'stopping disease.' He ignores the argument that voluntary immunization does this equally well. There are no benefits to affirming that won't be achieve either way.

CON
1. Lower quality vaccines
As PRO (for reasons unbeknownst to me) reaffirmed in his last speech, the pharmaceutical companies now get paid regardless of the effectiveness of their product.

2. Biopower
a. PRO concedes that the government will be running our lives.
b. PRO concedes that the government running our lives is a bad thing.
This one is a very clear and very major issue.

You vote CON because affirming doesn't actually produce any positive benefits, while it does create multiple unnecessary and very dangerous harms.